Dunblane School Massacre....ended handgun rights in UK

IF you realized that Lanza killed the gun owner to illegally gain access to the guns, you might have a point. IF we knew for sure that's what
actually happened, you'd have no point whatsoever. IF he owned them legally, what was stopping him from doing the same thing ? Nothing. IF B or D
were true, things could be a whole lot worse than they are today. and on the flip side, IF one of the adults had been armed, perhaps all of those
kids would be alive, today. (whether they had presents or not) xt

NO, Laza shot his mother, therefore he had access to the guns. Anyway, he had guns, therefore he had access to guns. DUH.

A gun owning society gives criminals access to guns. One of the reasons criminals are not typically gun wielding in the UK is that they can't
accquire them by theft from legit owners, which I read is a major source of the guns used in American crimes. Even if you are lucky enough to burgle a
house with guns, they are securely locked away, usually in sodding heavy metal cabinets that are a pig to break into. Also, rifles and shotguns are
not easy to conceal on your person. Walk down the street with them in the UK and the cops will stop you before you reach the end of the street. So,
they are of limited use for crime.

The Australians altered their gun laws after the port arthur massacre. The murder rate/armed robbery rate etc dropped, as did others as some crimes
like home invasion which are much harder without a concealable firearm. Criminals, generally, couldn't find them to steal to use anymore. Ther was no
increase in crimes against the citizenry who didn't own guns.

This is sobering reading. You should read it

In all other high-income democracies, it would have been very difficult for Loughner legally to have obtained his weapon. Some of these countries
have very few private guns (e.g., Japan, United Kingdom), while others have fairly many (e.g., Canada, Australia, Israel, Switzerland, Finland), but
have more restrictive gun laws than the United States.

Every one of these countries has been more successful than we have at keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

In Canada, for example, to legally buy a handgun requires a license, training, proof of legitimate purpose, a four-week waiting period, and two
references, who must sign the application. Handgun ammunition magazines are restricted to 10 rounds or less.

I have been studying injury and violence prevention for more than 40 years. What is known is that all injuries follow generally predictable patterns,
and most are preventable.

While we cannot predict at the individual level which specific people will be shot, we can predict fairly accurately at the population level about
how many people will be shot.

Thus I can predict with complete confidence that in the next decade, the United States will have many more homicides than the other high-income
democracies, and many more mass shootings.

As a benchmark, in 2003, the United States homicide rate was seven times higher than that of these countries, largely because our firearm homicide
rate was 20 times higher.

Why do these other countries have such low homicide rates?

Their children watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games as our children. They have as much bullying in schools. They have
oppressed minorities, and similar rates of non-firearm crime and violence (assaults, robbery, burglary, rape). And they all have crazy people.

But these other countries have stricter gun policies than the United States. And when disaster happens, they typically respond.

Following the 1996 Port Arthur, Tasmania, massacre of 35 people, Australia acted quickly to effectively ban assault weapons. A mandatory buyback
obtained more than 650,000 of these guns from existing owners. Australia also tightened requirements for licensing, registration and safe gun storage
of firearms.

The result? In the 18 years before the intervention, Australia had 13 mass shootings. In the dozen years since, there has not been a single one. The
laws also helped reduce firearm suicide and non-mass shooting firearm homicide.

Written by Dr David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy Director, Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

Finally...

IF one of the adults had been armed, perhaps all of those kids would be alive, today.

You think we should all carry around guns 24/7? That's tragic. A substantial proportion of the adult population is mentally ill, or just nasty.
They'd get guns too. The murder rate would be appalling. You know,like America's is..

Originally posted by OOOOOOSo the question must be asked: is this yet more proof that gun laws don't work because criminals don't obey
laws in the first place?

No, the question we must ask is why Breivik's intelligence connections were not investigated:

en.rian.ru...
Norway’s twin terror suspect Anders Behring Breivik trained at a secret paramilitary field camp in Belarus earlier this year, a Belarusian
opposition politician said on Thursday, citing security sources.
“Breivik visited Belarus several times. This spring, as part of his preparations for his twin attacks, he visited Minsk, where he underwent training
at a secret paramilitary field camp,” Mikhail Reshetnikov, the head of the opposition Belarusian Party of Patriots, told the Gazeta.ru online
newspaper. ...
Reshetnikov also claimed Breivik had participated in “sabotage-terrorism drills” under a former Belarusian special service officer and that he had
used a fake passport to enter Belarus.
“His codename in Belarus’s KGB was Viking,” he added. ....

You think we should all carry around guns 24/7? That's tragic. A substantial proportion of the adult population is mentally ill, or just nasty.
They'd get guns too. The murder rate would be appalling. You know,like America's is..

No it wouldn't. Your murder rate in 1960, before all of these gun control laws was 0.62 per 100K. It is now 1.2 per 100k, almost double. It appears
that your gun control laws did not keep you safer one bit does it?

Liscensed conceal carry permit holders rarely commit crime in the US. Think about it logically: if one is responsible to go through the liscensing
process and law abiding enough to pass the criminal and mental background checks, then one is responsible and law-abiding enough not to misuse their
firearms.

Defense of the Constitution and living by its entitlements... are conservative actions.

It always amazes me that Americans on this site rant about constitutional values and conservatism (another European political ideology, not American)
they go on about the defence of freedoms yet as soon as it is pointed out that what they are supporting is classical liberalism they deny it. All you
are doing is arguing semantics, the American constitution is a liberal document the bill of rights is a liberal document the idea of “rights” is a
liberal ideal.

Well, the problem that you are seeing is that in the US, the current definitions are that "liberals" are more politically leftist and more aligned
with the principles of the nanny state and big government, whereas "conservatives" are more aligned with the classical liberalism of our founders
and the philosophy of John Locke. The meanings of such lables on your side of the pond differ somewhat.

you just don't understand... We've apparently learned by your accounts all the British have to offer, therefore there is nothing nothing more to be
learned from your population. In case you haven't noticed... we're the leaders.

I can't keep going into it with you in this topic, I've already been warned by the moderator and just don't want to risk a post ban for a Briton.
The rest of the world are your "natives" you folks have alot of healing to do.

I know that, that is why I chose my language carefully and use the term “classical liberalism” a couple of times in that post.

Yes. I consider myself a classical liberal as well. "Conservative" in the US also implies a support of some social policy issues that I do not
agree with. A gay marriage ban on the federal level would not be in keeping with the principles of limited government, for example.

We've apparently learned by your accounts all the British have to offer, therefore there is nothing nothing more to be learned from your population.
In case you haven't noticed... we're the leaders.

WOW! Just WOW!

I think you may be the one who doesn’t understand

You have nothing more to learn for our population; again this is indicative of a problem I see time and time again on ATS, an inability to admit when
you are wrong. Rather than just say “yeah actually you’re right, liberalism was a British idea and it is a massive influence on the constitution
of the United States” you have gone with the line above.

America is a baby in terms of its age, 237 years old, our act of union is older than that, as a nation we are older than that as is most of Europe. To
claim that you have nothing left to learn from us Europeans because we taught you about liberalism, capitalism, the republic and democracy is
arrogance at its highest, it only promotes ignorance.

If you are worried about getting a ban then why dong you stick to the terms and conditions and debate like an adult by contributing to the debate and
learning form it.

This idea of America as the “leaders” that again is wrong, leaders of what exactly?

A question for you, do you accept that the Constitution of the United States of America is a classical liberal document and John Locke a British man
is the father of classical liberalism and had a big influence on your founding fathers when writing the constitution as much of it was based on his
work or the work of those he influenced.

Richard Dawkins and 'Modern' Liberalism is all the British represent in this day and age...

evolution time with tea and biscuits gets old real quick, not mentioning Brits are seemingly a Godless society. Figure its one of the reasons Islam is
rampaging thru your streets with hate speech.

know what 'Kafir' properly translates into English as in the context it is used? you may not know it but it means coward... afraid of God,
afraid to believe in God... so one can sin and do their evil ways without repercussion

so, let me get this straight ... i'm told to use the BCS cause they're right.
and i link the BCS and Logos says, they're wrong.

you come along and add ... maybe there's some truth here, but then discredit the BCS report yourself.

so, which is it ladies ... does the BCS have it right, or not ?

btw, the BCS report only covers the 5 yrs, post-ban from 1999-2003 ... not the before years or the continuing increases through 2011.

so then, let's look at some of what the BCS report contains ... then you can debunk it rather hurl insults and personal attacks at
me.

from the only links provided from the BCS thus far:

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk...://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf
The BCS shows an increase in the proportion of violent crimes that are reported to the police, from 35 per cent in 1999 to 41 per cent in
2002/03. In the same period the BCS estimates that the recording of reported crime increased from 36 per cent to 52 per cent.

- snip -

Recorded crimes involving firearms - Post Gun Ban / 02-03 only
• In 2002/03 firearms were used in 0.9 per cent of all violence against the person crimes and 4.4 per cent of all robberies. Together these
comprise 49 per cent of all firearm offences.

• Firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used in 7,133 violence against the person crimes in 2002/03. This was a twenty-two
per cent increase over the previous year.

• Firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used in 4,776 robbery offences in 2002/03. This was a 13 per cent decrease over the
previous year, following a 33 per cent increase in 2001/02. (which is still a 20% increase from 2000)

• About two per cent of all firearm crime resulted in a serious injury. There were 572 serious injuries resulting from crimes that involved firearms
(including air weapons) in 2002/03, up three per cent from 2001/02.

and, i linked a US govt comparison for a similar time period.
no paranoia of Wiki, i just prefer solid sources and that isn't Wiki.

i would guess neither of you read the above or care to but you're both right, the truth is available for those interested

When was I supposed to have said they were wrong? I made a claim that actual violent crime here had seen a downward spiral since 95...i offered you
the BCS for these statistics. You then went on to post a link that for some unkown reason you felt furthered your argument not mine....when in actual
fact the information backed up the claims I had made and quite clearly spoke about the reduction in violent crime and showed a graph for the period of
1981 - 2008 clearly showing the drop since 1995 which I had already told you about.That link supported my argument not yours.

You have quoted the BCS AGAIN in your last post believing it furthers your argument again.
Lets look at it again but without omitting the last sentence to that paragraph like YOU DID

The BCS shows an increase in the proportion of violent crimes that are reported to the police, from 35 per cent in 1999 to 41 per cent in 2002/03.
In the same period the BCS estimates that the recording of reported crime increased from 36 per cent to 52 per cent. These increases in both reporting
and recording of violent crime help explain the contrasting trends in BCS and recorded violent crime.

maybe you didn't understand it's key relevance or maybe you do and that's why you chose to omit it.....if you genuinely don't understand how this
supports MY claims then I can only gather that you don't understand exactly what it is you are quoting and how it fits into the debate on whether
there is a real increase in actual violent crime or not.
Again you have posted something that supports what I have been saying all along.

And by the way the BCS hasn't reported crime statistics for 5 years...it's been doing this for 30+ years.....the graph in a link YOU posted quite
clearly showed statistics from 1981 - 2008

• Firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used in 7,133 violence against the person crimes in 2002/03. This was a twenty-two
per cent increase over the previous year.

The original paragraph in that document read's

• Firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used in 7,133 violence against the person crimes in 2002/03. This was a twenty-two
per cent increase over the previous year. The National Crime Recording Standard was introduced on 1/4/02. This may have inflated figures for some
crime categories.

Again, you are wrong, Kafir in a world actually means “unbeliever” its literal translation if memory serves is along the lines of one who covers
up, conceals, or denies the truth or at least words to that effect. It does not however literally mean “coward”, that is just a factual
inaccuracy to claim that the world “Kafir” is Arabic for “coward”.

Also what you are saying about the proliferation of Islam in the UK is flat out wrong, the fastest growing “faith” is that of Atheism. There is no
demand by any significant group in the UK for sharia law, it’s just not happening.

I am very aware that many of my posts responding to you have a “your wrong” message. Please do not take this personally. ATS is a fantastic
learning tool, I learn something every day on this site rather than fight this embrace it and you will learn loads and enjoy it much more.

PS: we also gave you capitalism, the idea of a free market came from the Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith.

preservation of the favored races and survival of the fittest applies to many aspects of life and species when you look at it. Take the Wolf for
example... you have an alfa, the pack and then the shy runt or whatever we call it, (the one at who is last in line)

Atheism and Richard Dawkins philosophy have been around a long time, some even claim longer than Christianity... You can apply this principal to the
Kafir too, as their numbers seem to have stayed the same while other philosophies have increased. This not only can be applied to philosophies but
also entire cultures too... take a look at England, which at one time the sun never set on it's empire... now seemingly reduced to a 60 million
persons population, with 10% of that being resident aliens.

I live in NoVa, I have worked with many Muslims from various parts of the muslim world... and still do.

with homosexuality it is the same thing... see homosexuals think that they are increasing in numbers and they are getting more acceptance when in fact
this is not the case. What homosexuals are getting is sympathy.

Homosexuals say they are "born this way" their number percentage stays the same in proportion to the population of the earth... there is nothing new
under the sun.

indeed if they are born that way when looking at it from a scientific perspective being it is in our species nature to propagate, afterall it is what
man and female are made for... as with most all species who do not gestate on their own.

Indeed the scientific outlook would view it as a defect of otherwise normally healthy genes... and you can run that one by the master mr Dawkins if
you want to

if it is something that can be changed and a mental condition... well that's another story.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.